Harold Camping is a Heretical Cult Leader

    It is Sunday, May 22, 2011 and I and everyone I know is still alive and here on earth.  Normally, that would be a superfluous statement, but I imagine most Americans know exactly event (or non-event) to which I am referring.  According to Harold Camping or Family Radio in Oakland, I was supposed to have been taken out of this world yesterday.  I was not, and as far as I know neither were any people I know.

    The word “cult” has quite a few definitions ranging from the common usage of people today to more specialized descriptions utilized by scholars.  I have generally used the word to refer to a religious group claiming to be “Christian” while denying the deity of Christ.  However, there are other, more colloquial definitions that could be used instead.  One of several definitions of a cult found in the Encarta World English Dictionary is “a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false.” 

     Harold Camping has a group of very devoted followers; people who listen exclusively to his teachings, believe everything he says, ignore evidence of his errors, and who will continue to be led like mindless robots by this modern day idol.  It is vitally important that everyone understand that Camping is not a teacher of truths generally accepted by any group upon which the label of Christian is normally affixed.  He does not rightly discern the Word of Truth, even though he carries, reads from and studies a huge Bible.  Many people read and study the Bible but fail to grasp the truths they read.

    Camping has taught quite a few things with which I disagree.  That does not mean he is a cult leader.  Many people interpret various passages differently.  What makes him a cult leader is that he teaches people ideas that are specifically opposed to passages that are easily understood by most Christians.  He has taught that the angel Michael is Jesus Christ!  (The End of the Church Age…And After p. 56)  That is a denial of the deity of Christ, and puts him square in the definition of a cult I have adopted.  He further has urged his followers to leave the churches they attend and listen only to him.  This is in direct contradiction of Hebrews 10:25, “Let us not give up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (NIV).  Isolating his followers from any other people who could help them evaluate his teachings honestly is the classic tactic of a cult leader.

    This latest prediction about the end of the world and the return of Christ is not his first.  He predicted the same event in 1994--twice.  Of course, it did not take place then either.  However, he had an explanation: He had miscalculated.  Therefore, 1996 was set as the correct date.  The latest, and let us hope it is the last, prediction was May 21, 2011--6:00 P.M.--in each time zone.  Unlike so many charlatans who deliberately deceive others for financial gain, I think Camping actually believes he has the only real truth.  He is a sad case of an ego gone wild.

    I am most disappointed that he has provided so much fodder for the masses of unbelievers who hungrily sit waiting to pounce on any misstep Christians make in their attempts to discredit the church, the Bible or God.  He has not only led many away from God, but has now placed enormous obstacles in the paths of others who now may disregard anything they hear about Jesus Christ. 

    Deuteronomy 18: 20; “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say…must be put to death.”  Then in verse 22, “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.”  Now, I am not suggesting we stone this sad, old man.  However, I am admonishing all to disassociate from him.  Shun him.  Leave him to preach his nonsense to an imaginary audience.  He does not represent God.  He is a heretic.

Patriotic Loyalties Meet Spiritual Duty

    Back in February I asked the question, “If you had lived in one of the colonies in 1776, would you have been a patriot or a loyalist?”  Nineteen of you thought you would have been on the side of the American patriots, while three of you indicated you would have been loyal to the British.

    The reason I asked this question is somewhat complicated.  I’ll shorten the explanation by simply pointing out that I had had a couple of conversations with different people about whether or not Christians were always obligated to obey the law, or if there are issues that are only spiritual concerns, making government involvement (or interference) irrelevant?  Over the years I have often heard people answer by pointing out a passage in the Bible which states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2). 

    While this seems like a plain enough answer, there are some other aspects of this issue that people need to consider.  For instance, not too far from that passage I just quoted is another, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God” (Acts 4:19).  And I have noticed that many of my Christian brothers and sisters are also quite patriotic, often extolling the virtues of our democracy and the men who bravely sacrificed so much to give birth to this great nation.  But, wasn’t this country born from rebellion against the governing authorities?  I am somewhat confused that so many think they would have been on the side of the American revolutionaries instead of those who remained loyal to the established government.

    Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?  I mean, carefully read it?  This great document asserts that the dissolution of a people’s connection with an established government may become necessary for the purpose of assuming “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”  It goes on to proclaim that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  These are important statements because they are the foundation for the defense of a rebellion: If a government becomes so oppressive that it begins to deny the equality God has given to all people, then it is “…the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”  Furthermore, governments don’t derive their powers from God, but from “…the consent of the governed…”  I should note that Thomas Jefferson, the author of this treasure, did not believe rebellions against established authorities should be entered into lightly.  He clearly states that this is a last recourse, when the government has become so despotic that its evils are no longer sufferable.  Yet, when that condition is met, we not only have a right, but a duty to throw off that government.

    There seems to me to be a disconnect between the verses so often quoted by good, patriotic American Christians and the foundational document we hold so dear.  Was our American Revolution justified in God’s eyes?  Should we have been loyal to the king if we had lived back then?  What about today?  Under what circumstances may we in good conscience disobey the established authorities? 

    Obviously, I am not going to answer these questions in this post.  It would be much to lengthy.  Besides, I would first like to hear from you.  I know, there are 20 people who are “followers” of this blog, and according to the stat counter there are another 10 or 20 who read it from time to time, but I rarely get any comments from any of you.  Please weigh in on this.  I am most anxious to read your thoughts.

The World is a Better Place Today

    I purposely waited a few days before posting anything about the killing of Osama bin Laden.  I wanted to make sure my initial reaction was going to be my thought-out reaction.  So, here are my thoughts.

    The world is better off without this mass murderer.  He was an evil man responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.  Interestingly, a large percentage of those deaths were other Muslims.  Even today I heard of an al Qaeda attack on Muslims in Baghdad.  The Sunnis and Shiites hate each other almost as much as they hate everyone else who doesn’t agree with them completely.  I have no doubt bin Laden got what he deserved.

    The killing of bin Laden, as opposed to his capture, was not only a wise action, but a justified one.  I have been listening to the talk show callers.  I am amazed at the number of people who claim our constitution was violated by the actions of the Navy Seal team.  The objection is that bin Laden was denied due process.  When will people in this country understand that we are at war?  The rules of war are different from the rules of our civil justice system.  The strategy of war is to kill the enemy until they decide they’ve had enough.  That is why military budgets are heavy on weaponry.  When at war, a major objective is to dismantle the enemy’s command structure; kill the officers responsible for giving orders to everyone else.  Bin Laden was al Qaeda’s commander-in-chief.  He was a legitimate target.

     I think the problem is that our population is having difficulty redefining “war” in the 21^st century.  War has evolved since the creation of human beings.  The invention of gun powder diminished the need for hand-to-hand combat.  As a result, strategies changed and war took on a different look.  The American colonists’ experience with the Native Americans, especially in the French and Indian War, changed tactics.  The colonists learned that it was neither necessary nor desirable to stand in straight lines in an open field and trade shots with lines of the enemy.  Camouflage and taking cover behind rocks and trees changed the definition of war.  The invention of airplanes and tanks moved armies out of lines of trenches and made war a mobile event.  The advent of the helicopter made it even more mobile.  The Vietnam War was primarily a deadly game of hide and seek; no discernable lines of combat.  The technology we have today minimizes the loss of both military and civilian lives.  Instead of thousands of lives being deemed “acceptable loses” as in WWII, now a half-dozen lost lives get a large headline.  Make no mistake; we are at war.  But this time the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms or attack in strength of numbers, or limit their activities to a specific battlefield.  The 21^st century war is waged by small groups against a global civilian population. 

    One more thing: Photos of the dead body should not be released.  The conspiracy theorists won’t believe any picture they see.  I heard a caller just yesterday say if he saw a photo of a dead bin Laden he would admire the Photo Shop work.  Skeptics will not be convinced.  American haters will be more inflamed.  A photo will serve no good purpose for our country.

    It’s time I let you in on the results of the survey I took some months back regarding whether you would have been a patriot or a British loyalist when it came time to choose sides.  I promise an article in a few days…in between selling my truck, finishing the installation of a window, getting the yard in shape, volunteering with the police department, public cemetery and my church, spending time with some of my grandchildren, honoring my children’s mother and taking an occasional nap.  Ah, the relaxing retired life!